FS50190664: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50190664 | |dn_ref=FS50190664 | ||
|dn_date=28 | |dn_date=28 September 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=National Offender Management Service | |dn_pa=National Offender Management Service | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant made two requests for information concerning a medical examination on his late son on 13 August 1999, including the | |dn_summary=The complainant made two requests for information concerning a medical examination on his late son on 13 August 1999, including the doctor’s name who conducted it. The public authority responded that it held no recorded information. The Commissioner determined that it was incorrect in this determination and therefore breached sections 1(1)(a) and (1)(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) in relation to the first request. It also breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in relation to both of the requests. He also found a procedural breach of section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) in relation to the first request. The public authority released all the outstanding recorded information except for the name of the doctor, which it withheld by reference to section 40(2). The Commissioner has found that the public authority was correct in its application of this exemption. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50190664.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50190664.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:37, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50190664
- Date: 28 September 2009
- Public Authority: National Offender Management Service
- Summary: The complainant made two requests for information concerning a medical examination on his late son on 13 August 1999, including the doctor’s name who conducted it. The public authority responded that it held no recorded information. The Commissioner determined that it was incorrect in this determination and therefore breached sections 1(1)(a) and (1)(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) in relation to the first request. It also breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in relation to both of the requests. He also found a procedural breach of section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) in relation to the first request. The public authority released all the outstanding recorded information except for the name of the doctor, which it withheld by reference to section 40(2). The Commissioner has found that the public authority was correct in its application of this exemption. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
